CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Science Education and PedagogyEducational Theory and Curriculum StudiesScience and Education Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Tension Between Visions of Science Education: The Case of Energy Quality in Swedish Secondary Science Curricula

Open access
Haglund, Jesper, Hultén, Magnus·2017·Science & Education
DOI 10.1007/s11191-017-9895-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of this study is to contribute to an understanding of how curricular change is accomplished in practice, including the positions and conflicts of key stakeholders and participants, and their actions in the process. As a case, we study the treatment of energy in Swedish secondary curricula in the period 1962–2011 and, in particular, how the notion of energy quality was introduced in the curricula in an energy course at upper secondary school in 1983 and in physics at lower secondary school in 1994. In the analysis, we use Roberts’ two competing visions of science education, Vision I in which school science subjects largely mirror their corresponding academic disciplines and Vision II that incorporates societal matters of science. In addition, a newly suggested Vision III represents a critical perspective on science education. Our analysis shows how Vision II and III aspects of science education have gained importance in curricula since the 1980s, but in competition with Vision I considerations. Energy quality played a central role in providing Vision II and III arguments in the curricular debate on energy teaching. Subsequent educational research has found that Swedish teachers and students struggle with how to relate to energy quality in physics teaching, which we explain as partly due to the tension between the competing visions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11191-017-9895-1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Expanding the research agenda for scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 64–71). Uppsala: Geotryckeriet.
  2. Alfvén, H. (1973). Energiproblemet. In J. Nihlén (Ed.), Energi till döds? (pp. 16–32). Johanneshov: Bokförlaget Robert Larson AB.
  3. Andersson, B. (1992a). Kursplanearbete i naturvetenskap och teknik för grundskolan. PM nummer 1. Om kursplanestruktur för naturvetenskap och teknik. Riksarkivet, Läroplanskommittén, Utkast till SOU 1993:2, mapp 6. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
  4. Andersson, B. (1992b). Kursplanearbete i naturvetenskap och teknik för grundskolan. PM nummer 5. Energiflödet genom jorden. Exempel på ett målområde gemensamt för fysik, kemi, biologi och teknik. Riksarkivet, Läroplanskommittén, Utkast till SOU 1993:2, mapp 6. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
  5. Andersson, B. (1992c). Kursplanearbete i naturvetenskap och teknik för grundskolan. PM nummer 8. Kursplan för naturvetenskap och teknik. Förslag till huvudsakligt innehåll. Riksarkivet, Läroplanskommittén, Utkast till SOU 1993:2, mapp 6. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
  6. Andersson, B. (2008). Att förstå skolans naturvetenskap: forskningsresultat och nya idéer. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
  7. Anshelm, J. (2006). Från energiresurs till kvittblivningsproblem. Frågan om kärnavfallets hantering i det offentliga samtalet i Sverige, 1950–2002. SKB Rapport R-06-113. Stockholm: Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB.
  8. Berntsson, T. (1980). Angående energiutbildningen på tekniskt gymnasium. Riksarkivet, Arninge. S:3 F I bc:8. Göteborg: Chalmers Tekniska Högskola.
  9. Carlgren, I. (1995). National curriculum as social compromise or discursive politics? Some reflections on a curriculum-making process. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(4), 411–430. · DOI
  10. Carlgren, I., & Englund, T. (1994). Innehållsfrågan, didaktiken och läroplansreformen. Utbildning och Demokrati. Tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitik, 3(3), 9–21.
  11. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. · DOI
  12. Duit, R. (1983). Is the second law of thermodynamics easier to understand than the first law? In G. Marx (Ed.), 6th Danube seminar on physics education—entropy in the school (pp. 87–97). Budapest: Roland Eötvös Physical Society.
  13. Duit, R. (1984). Learning the energy concept in school—empirical results from the Philippines and West Germany. Physics Education, 19(2), 59–66. · DOI
  14. Duit, R., & Kesidou, S. (1988). Students’ understanding of basic ideas of the second law of thermodynamics. Research in Science Education, 18(1), 186–195. · DOI
  15. Englund, T. (1994). Communities, markets and traditional values: Swedish schooling in the 1990s. Curriculum Studies, 2(1), 5–29. · DOI
  16. Englund, T. (1997). Towards a dynamic analysis of the content of schooling: narrow and broad didactics in Sweden. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(3), 267–288. · DOI
  17. Englund, T., & Östman, L. (1992). Orienteringsämnenas framtid. En didaktisk betraktelse av läroplansbetänkandet. KRUT (Kritisk Utbildningstidskrift), 67(3), 32–40.
  18. Engström, S. (2008). Vilka fysikaliska och miljömässiga förklaringar återfinns i elevers diskussioner om begreppet hållbart energisystem? Nordina, 4(1), 240–255.
  19. Engström, S., & Carlhed, C. (2014). Different habitus: different strategies in teaching physics? Relationships between teachers’ social, economic and cultural capital and strategies in teaching physics in upper secondary school. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 699–728. · DOI
  20. Eriksson, B., & Eriksson, K.-E. (1980). Sverige 2020 - en framtid för människor. Gothenburg: Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies of the Human Condition, Gothenburg University.
  21. Eriksson, B., Eriksson, K.-E., Olsson, K., & Wall, G. (1976). Towards an integrated accounting of energy and other natural resources. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology and the University of Gothenburg, Department of Theoretical Physics.
  22. Feinstein, N. W. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Feinstein, N. W., & Kirchgasler, K. L. (2015). Sustainability in science education? How the next generation science standards approach sustainability, and why it matters. Science Education, 99(1), 121–144. · DOI
  24. Fensham, P. J. (2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: the role of research. Science Education, 93(6), 1076–1095. · DOI
  25. Gerholm, T. R. (1973). Futurum exaktum: den tekniska utmaningen (3rd ed.). Stockholm: Bonniers.
  26. Gerholm, T. R. (1992a). Förslag till huvudsakligt innehåll i fysik. Riksarkivet, Läroplanskommittén, Utkast till SOU 1993:2, mapp 6. Stockholm: Läroplanekommittén.
  27. Gerholm, T. R. (1992b). Naturvetenskap. Undervisningens inriktning. Riksarkivet, Läroplanskommittén, Utkast till SOU 1993:2, mapp 6. Stockholm: Läroplanekommittén.
  28. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670. · DOI
  29. Hultén, M. (2008). Naturens kanon: Formering och förändring av innehållet i folkskolans och grundskolans naturvetenskap 1842–2007. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
  30. Hultén, M. (2013). Boundary objects and curriculum change: the case of integrated versus subject-based teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(6), 790–813. · DOI
  31. Hultén, M. (2016). Scientists, teachers and the ‘scientific’ textbook: interprofessional relations and the modernisation of elementary science textbooks in nineteenth-century Sweden. History of Education, 45(2), 143–168. · DOI
  32. Johansson, B. (1992a). Lyft fram konfliktperspektivet! Funderingar kring sju plus en miljöartiklar. KRUT (Kritisk Utbildningstidskrift), 68(4), 50–56.
  33. Johansson, B. (1992b). Skolan måste visa på olika bilder av världen. Utbildning och Demokrati. Tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitik, 1(3), 39–62.
  34. Johansson, B. (1992c). Vagt om miljöfrågorna. KRUT (Kritisk Utbildningstidskrift), 67(3), 18–20.
  35. Judt, T. (2005). Postwar: a history of Europe since 1945. New York: Penguin Press.
  36. Kesidou, S., & Duit, R. (1993). Students’ conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics—an interpretive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 85–106. · DOI
  37. Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. · DOI
  38. Layton, D. (1973). Science for the people: the origins of the school science curriculum in England. London: Allen & Unwin.
  39. Levin, H. M. (1978). The dilemma of comprehensive secondary school reforms in Western Europe. Comparative Education Review, 22(3), 434–451. · DOI
  40. Lindblad, C. (1992). Ang. kursplaneförslag i naturkunskapsämnen som kommit mig till del lö 19 dec 1992 för yttrande senast må 21 dec 1992. Riksarkivet, Läroplanskommittén, Utkast till SOU 1993:2, mapp 10. Stockholm: Läroplanekommittén.
  41. Lindström, S. (1991). Hela nationens tacksamhet. Svensk forskningspolitik på atomenergiområdet 1945–1956. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
  42. Lööw, P.-O. (1979). Sammanställning av remissvar över ny kursplan i ämnet energi på fyraårig teknisk linje. Riksarkivet, Arninge. S:3 F I bc:8. Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen.
  43. Lövheim, D. (2010). An epistemology of one’s own: curricular (re-) construction of school technology and non-technology in Sweden, 1975–1995. History of Education, 39(4), 525–537. · DOI
  44. Lovins, A. B. (1976). Energy strategy: the road not taken? Foreign Affairs, 55(1), 65–96. · DOI
  45. Moberg, Å. (2014). Ett extremt dyrt och livsfarligt sätt att värma vatten: en bok om kärnkraft. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.
  46. Odum, H. T. (1973). Energy, ecology, and economics. Ambio, 2(6), 220–227.
  47. Ogborn, J. (1986). Energy and fuel: the meaning of “the go of things”. School Science Review, 68(242), 30–35.
  48. Rant, Z. (1956). Exergie, ein neues Wort für ‘Technische Arbeitsfähigkeit’. Forschung auf dem Gebiet des Ingenieurwesens A, 22(1), 36–37.
  49. Roberts, D. A. (1998). Analyzing school science courses: the concept of companion meaning. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 5–12). New York: Teachers College Press.
  50. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  51. Roberts, D. A. (2011). Competing visions of scientific literacy: The influence of a science curriculum policy image. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 11–27). New York: Routledge.
  52. Rosen, M. A. (2002). Thermodynamics education: Is present coverage of exergy sufficient and appropriate? Exergy An International Journal, 2(4), 207–210. · DOI
  53. Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: the cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgave. · DOI
  54. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of “the scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341–376. · DOI
  55. Schlichting, H. J., & Backhaus, U. (1983). From energy devaluation to exergy. In G. Marx (Ed.), 6th Danube seminar on physics education—entropy in the school (pp. 228–242). Budapest: Roland Eötvös Physical Society.
  56. Sciubba, E., & Wall, G. (2007). A brief commented history of exergy from the beginnings to 2004. International Journal of Thermodynamics, 10(1), 1–26.
  57. Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (to appear). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung. In Y. J. Dori, Z. Mevaresh, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Dordrecht: Springer.
  58. Sjöström, J., Eilks, I., & Zuin, V. G. (2016). Towards eco-reflexive science education. Science & Education, 25(3), 321–341. · DOI
  59. Skolöverstyrelsen. (1962). Läroplan för grundskolan. Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen.
  60. Skolöverstyrelsen. (1969). Lgr 69. Läroplan för grundskolan. Allmän del. Stockholm: Liber.
  61. Skolöverstyrelsen. (1970). Lgy 70. Läroplan för gymnasieskolan. Supplement. Treårig ekonomisk linje. Treårig humanistisk linje. Treårig naturvetenskaplig linje. Treårig samhällsvetenskaplig linje. Fyraårig teknisk linje. Stockholm: Liber.
  62. Skolöverstyrelsen. (1979). Förslag till ny kursplan i ämnet energi på fyraårig teknisk linje, Dnr S 79:829. Arninge: Riksarkivet.
  63. Skolöverstyrelsen. (1983). Lgy 70. Läroplan för gymnasieskolan. Supplement 85. Energi. Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen.
  64. Skolverket. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreational centre 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket.
  65. Solomon, J. (1982). How children learn about energy or does the first law come first? School Science Review, 63(224), 415–422.
  66. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Thorsén, K. (Ed.). (1991). Om undervisningen i orienteringsämnen. Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen and Allmänna Förlaget.
  68. Utbildningsdepartementet. (1992). Skola för bildning. Huvudbetänkande av läroplanskommittén. SOU 1992:94. Stockholm: Allmänna Förlaget.
  69. Utbildningsdepartementet. (1993). Kursplaner för grundskolan. Slutbetänkande av läroplanskommittén. SOU 1993:2. Stockholm: Allmänna Förlaget.
  70. Utbildningsdepartementet. (1994a). Kursplaner för grundskolan. Lpo 94. Stockholm: Fritzes.
  71. Utbildningsdepartementet. (1994b). Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet. Lpo 94. Stockholm: Fritzes.
  72. Viglietta, L. (1990a). ‘efficiency’ in the teaching of energy. Physics Education, 25(6), 317–321. · DOI
  73. Viglietta, L. (1990b). A more ‘efficient’ approach to energy teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 491–500. · DOI
  74. Warren, J. W. (1983). Energy and its carriers: a critical analysis. Physics Education, 18(5), 209–212. · DOI
  75. WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  76. Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all: More than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: moving forward (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht: Springer. · DOI
  77. Zeidler, D. L. (2007). An inclusive view on scientific literacy: core issues and future directions. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: science education research in transaction (pp. 72–84). Uppsala: Geotryckeriet.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 25

Metadata

Authors
Haglund, J., & Hultén, M.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Haglund, Jesper
ORCID
Venue
Science & Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-05
Volume
26
Issue
3-4
Pages
323-344
ISSN
  • 0926-7220 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1901
DOI
10.1007/s11191-017-9895-1
OpenAlex
W2619554824
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Science & Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Uppsala University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science and Education Research
Keywords
curriculum change, energy quality, physics curriculum, secondary school curriculum, stakeholder conflict

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tension Between Visions of Science Education: The Case of Energy Quality in Swedish Secondary Science Curricula. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11191-017-9895-1
The paper
Haglund, J., & Hultén, M. (2017). Tension Between Visions of Science Education: The Case of Energy Quality in Swedish Secondary Science Curricula. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9895-1